"Born in the USA??????"

Given the dialogue that followed the most recent Republican debate on the topic of the Constitutional requirements applicable to anyone seeking the Office of the President and the dispute that has been on-going for  weeks regarding Senator Cruz and his birthplace in Canada, I just have to chime in.  The dialogue so far has been much muddled and pretty far off of the mark.  The general dialogue falls into one of two positions: 1. As Cruz repeats over and over, the issue is "settled law" and that someone born to parents (or one parent) that is a legitimate US Citizen, are "natural born" citizens; and, 2. That a "natural born" citizen must have been born on US soil (Trump).

The pundit dialogue so far seems to reveal that those commenting on the topic have done so without adequate research and have taken the easy way out by simply stating that the US Supreme Court has never ruled on this narrow issue.  And, so goes the argument, without a Supreme Court ruling it is impossible to determine just what constitutes a "natural born citizen." This is simply just a dodge. Those that support the Cruz position - that it is already "settled law" - have evaporated from the commentary - as they should have done from the start - insofar as this issue is certainly not "settled law."  The actual answer to this question is relatively simple and makes common sense.  Citizenship results in only one of two ways - one is either "natural born" or "nationalized."  The former is a consequence of place of birth and citizenship is conferred automatically as outlined in the Constitution.  The latter is citizenship conferred by statute adopted by Congress outlining the conditions that must be met by those not "natural born" citizens.  Citizenship is generally not automatic and may be conferred in a variety of ways.  As a statute, the law may be amended from time to time or altered by judicial decision, changing the conditions and/or requirements necessary to achieve citizenship.  These are "naturalized" citizens. 

This debate evidently revolves around the issue of what the Framers of the Constitution meant or intended the language of the Constitution to mean when they distinguished the highest office in the land - the presidency - from the other significant offices - the House, Senate, and Supreme Court.  All required citizenship as a prerequisite  but just one - the presidency - requires that the person assuming office must be a "natural born" citizen.  If there was no difference in the citizenship requirement, why distinguish one from the other with different language?  One cannot find a better authority on what the Framers intended in 1788 than William Blackstone - the single most respected expert on legal intent and interpretation of legal language in that time period.  In fact, to this day Blackstone, a colonial period British legal scholar, remains the premier authority of interpreting legal and statutory language before the American Court system and in  law schools teaching western legal traditions.  As a Harvard law School graduate, Ted Cruz certainly knows this very well.... just as he knows that this matter IS NOT "settled law."

Blackstone noted in his discussion of electoral qualifications for high office that "natural born" meant "born within the borders of the nation" versus, born outside the borders of the nation.  The physical "nation" includes all of the legal territories of the nation including territories, colonies, military bases and/or embassy properties as defined by law. However, the law cannot define some other country as "within the borders of the United States." For those born outside these parameters, NATURALIZATION as a statutory construct provides a legal path to citizenship.  There was a time when children of US Citizens born outside the country were required to go through a process of "naturalization" and were clearly not "natural born" citizens.  Somewhere around 1934, Congress passed a statute conferring automatic citizenship on the children of US Citizens born elsewhere.  That statute has been amended several times over the years to liberalize the rules for children "born outside the borders of the nation."  Still, no amendment can confer "natural born" citizenship status on an individual who was not born inside the country - therefore, all such "automatic" citizens ARE NOT "natural born" citizens.  The point is, why would Congress need to pass a law to cover these circumstances if such children were constitutionally "natural born?"  Conferring "automatic" citizenship or "naturalized" citizenship is not the same thing as a "natural born" citizen, according to Blackstone.

Of course, not being a member of the Supreme Court, my opinion is of little consequence at this point.  My degrees in history and sociology certainly do not compare with training in the law, especially from a well respected institution such as Harvard University.  But, common sense (and Blackstone as well) reveals that the issue is not as unclear as Senator Cruz would want us to believe.  Perhaps Bruce Springsteen had it right all along.  What counts is being "Born in the USA" - period.  Do not be satisfied with guesswork and ask your staff to research Blackstone.  That widely accepted legal authority makes the issue quite clear - the only thing that makes you a "natural born" citizen is place of birth.  One must be born "on the land" of the nation.  Persons born elsewhere can become citizens - by  statutorily conferred automatic citizenship or by a "naturalization" process - but can never be "natural born" citizens.  As a result, though citizens all, only the "natural born" can occupy the office of the Presidency.  It appears that does not include Ted Cruz.